The Hatred for Bush

[g5man]

A Dislike Unlike Any Other?
Writer Jonathan Chait Brings Bush-Hating Out of the Closet
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 19, 2003; Page D01

The words tumble out, the hands gesture urgently, as Jonathan Chait explains why he hates George W. Bush.

It's Bush's radical policies, says the 31-year-old New Republic writer, and his unfair tax cuts, and his cowboy phoniness, and his favors for corporate cronies, and his heist in Florida, and his dishonesty about his silver-spoon upbringing, and, oh yes, the way he walks and talks.

For some of his friends, Chait says at a corner table in a downtown Starbucks, "just seeing his face or hearing his voice causes a physical reaction -- they have to get away from the TV. My sister-in-law describes Bush's existence as an oppressive force, a constant weight on her shoulder, just knowing that George Bush is president."



Has this unassuming man in a rumpled sports shirt lifted the lid on a boiling caldron of anti-Bush fury in liberal precincts across America? Or is he just an overcaffeinated, irrational liberal, venting to a minority of like-minded readers?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46805-2003Oct18?language=printer

[pseudobrit]

Same thing happened to Clinton.

Except the hatred for him was largely based on a few accounts of oral sex, which is a failing any man could have.

Bush has really done some horrible things as president, failings that only the president could have, like starting aggressive wars.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Same thing happened to Clinton.

Except the hatred for him was largely based on a few accounts of oral sex, which is a failing any man could have.

Bush has really done some horrible things as president, failings that only the president could have, like starting aggressive wars.

Exactly. Clinton had his shortcomings, but they only affected the nation because a select few people were spiteful and wanted to make sure that they affected everyone. Bush has just plain ********* up. It's obvious, it's open, and few people seem to care.

[IJ Reilly]

Good article -- thanks for posting it.

Brooks is at least somewhat right -- once the opposition to Bush becomes about superficial personality traits and mannerisms, the argument against Bush is effectively neutralized. This is similar to when Republicans tried to use Clinton's habit of biting his lower lip as proof positive that he was completely insincere.

I want to see the Democrats take on Bush issue by issue, because that's where I think they can beat him.

[g5man]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
Exactly. Clinton had his shortcomings, but they only affected the nation because a select few people were spiteful and wanted to make sure that they affected everyone. Bush has just plain ********* up. It's obvious, it's open, and few people seem to care.

True very true, however those who hate Bush have not used the courts or congressional investigations to back up their claims. Everyone has an opinion, but unless they can sway public perception it will not become reality. Like IJ Reilly pointed out, the Democrats need to beat him on the issues in order to win.

The question than remains; How can they turn the hatred and strong opinions into wins at the ballot box?

[Thanatoast]

all we have to do (imo) is point out the facts.

we have gone from a several trillion dollar surplus to a several trillion dollar deficit in three years thanks largely to bush's ->unbalanced<- tax cuts and his two wars.

civil rights have been severely eroded under his administration. you can now be held indefinitely without charge and without access to a lawyer.

he has squandered what goodwill we had acheived under clinton with our international allies. england is squarely on his side, but ~180 other nations seriously question our motives. (not the best argument to use against conservatives who don't give flying **** but might help get the liberal vote out)

he straight up LIED in his *State of the Union* address about iraqi purchases (or non-purchases as turns out) of enriched uranium from nigeria.

if we call him out, we can't let up. continue to point out verifiable lies and misrepresentations. preferably in 10-ft letters in front of the white house. don't let conservatives fluster us. they're better at that particular game than liberals. don't let them lead the debate either.

liberals tend to have just as short memories as conservatives. what other lies have come out so far that the media has ditched because the story has been past its prime?

[raschild]

The article also made this point:
"The other side is getting upset as well. David Brooks, the former Weekly Standard writer who recently became a New York Times columnist, took vigorous exception to Chait's piece, writing that

"the quintessential new warrior scans the Web for confirmation of the president's villainy. . . . The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves.""

Sadly, this is a point that I think is well made. The same was also true of the "Clinton-haters" during his administration. They seek so fervently to defame the President that they overlook any good attributes that are present.

Just remember as you talk about the President, whoever may be occupying the office at the time (it doesn't matter), be it positive or not, that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States and for that alone deserves respect. That goes for President Bush now, and for whoever replaces him later.

[charboneau]

Originally posted by raschild
". . . . The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves.""
[/B]
Patently ridiculous. The threat to democracy is not the President who stole an election? It's those that calls him on it.

So, it's not the administration that tries to silence political dissent, it's those who exercise their democratic rights. Not the AG who attacks the Constitution, who selectively prosecutes political activists, it's those who seek civil rights.

Please.

[IJ Reilly]

I take Brooks' point, at least as I understand what he's saying. Democracy should be about issues, not who find who to be more personally repellent. Leaving aside the repulsive behavior of Republicans during the Clinton years (and to this day), the culture war aspects of this really do represent a seriously dangerous trend in our politics.

[raschild]

Originally posted by charboneau
Patently ridiculous. The threat to democracy is not the President who stole an election? It's those that calls him on it.

So, it's not the administration that tries to silence political dissent, it's those who exercise their democratic rights. Not the AG who attacks the Constitution, who selectively prosecutes political activists, it's those who seek civil rights.

Please.

You missed the point I was trying to make. People expend far to much energy looking for evidence to confirm what they already believe, namely that the President is a terrible person. They are so focused on confirming their opinion that they fail to take notice of any good things that President might have done. This is true of Republicans and Democrats alike. That's what the article was trying to communicate.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Same thing happened to Clinton.

Except the hatred for him was largely based on a few accounts of oral sex, which is a failing any man could have.

Bush has really done some horrible things as president, failings that only the president could have, like starting aggressive wars.

"I get the feeling that some Democrats had so much hatred for Bush that they had no hatred left over for Saddam," Brooks says in an interview. "Conversely, some Republicans had so much hatred for Clinton they could never bring themselves to support some of the good things he did."

Dunno, the interview with the 'definition of 'is' is' is pretty bad.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I take Brooks' point, at least as I understand what he's saying. Democracy should be about issues, not who find who to be more personally repellent. Leaving aside the repulsive behavior of Republicans during the Clinton years (and to this day), the culture war aspects of this really do represent a seriously dangerous trend in our politics.
Agreed. We are seriously turning into a Disunited States.
http://www.atr.org/graphics/states_bush_won_counties_large.jpg

What will be Bush's undoing is the expansion of federal government and powers. Good thing the Patriot Act has an expiration date.

Reagan's tax cuts did give a good burst in economic activity, maybe Bush's tax cut will do the same thing. So far, it looks to be working, and kinda the same as with Reagan's. Economy did not pick up until into Reagan's 3rd year, pretty much the same with Bush.
Reagan also ran pretty large budget deficits, in military spending too.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
all we have to do (imo) is point out the facts.

we have gone from a several trillion dollar surplus to a several trillion dollar deficit in three years thanks largely to bush's ->unbalanced<- tax cuts and his two wars.

civil rights have been severely eroded under his administration. you can now be held indefinitely without charge and without access to a lawyer.

he has squandered what goodwill we had acheived under clinton with our international allies. england is squarely on his side, but ~180 other nations seriously question our motives. (not the best argument to use against conservatives who don't give flying **** but might help get the liberal vote out)

he straight up LIED in his *State of the Union* address about iraqi purchases (or non-purchases as turns out) of enriched uranium from nigeria.

if we call him out, we can't let up. continue to point out verifiable lies and misrepresentations. preferably in 10-ft letters in front of the white house. don't let conservatives fluster us. they're better at that particular game than liberals. don't let them lead the debate either.

liberals tend to have just as short memories as conservatives. what other lies have come out so far that the media has ditched because the story has been past its prime?

So if I understand you correctly, those who do not like Bush are basically left with the plan of staying on message (as described by you above) and keep repeating it over and over again.

This of course can be very persuasive if further evidence appears to back up the claims made. On the other hand this strategy can also come across as too negative, especially if most people give him the benefit of the doubt.

What I don't seem to understand is why someone who dislikes the president so much can not approach this from a different angle. A little praise along with some constructive rebuke followed by a positive agenda may change peoples minds.

The issue of federal deficits regardless of who is to blame or how large they are is not something a regular person really cares about. This message would only hit home if suddenly a family is financially hit and the deficit can be blamed for the hit.

This is just one example of how this political game plan can not lead to a winning result.

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Frohickey

http://www.atr.org/graphics/states_bush_won_counties_large.jpg


this is one of the most retarded graphics, sorry. People vote, not square miles...and then in a county that Bush won, they add all of Gore's votes to Bush's account...

It is easy to distort/hide the truth with graphics.

[etoiles]

Originally posted by g5man
What I don't seem to understand is why someone who dislikes the president so much can not approach this from a different angle. A little praise along with some constructive rebuke followed by a positive agenda may change peoples minds.

praise for what exactly ?? Just curious, I can't find anything right now...

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by g5man
So if I understand you correctly, those who do not like Bush are basically left with the plan of staying on message (as described by you above) and keep repeating it over and over again.

This of course can be very persuasive if further evidence appears to back up the claims made. On the other hand this strategy can also come across as too negative, especially if most people give him the benefit of the doubt.

What I don't seem to understand is why someone who dislikes the president so much can not approach this from a different angle. A little praise along with some constructive rebuke followed by a positive agenda may change peoples minds.

The issue of federal deficits regardless of who is to blame or how large they are is not something a regular person really cares about. This message would only hit home if suddenly a family is financially hit and the deficit can be blamed for the hit.

This is just one example of how this political game plan can not lead to a winning result.

Sometimes the American electorate baffles me, like CA electing the governator. You bring up a valid point about being too negative, but I'm also trying to think of the conservative agenda and response.

So far, their agenda seems to have been, misrepresent, distort, repeat. If something is repeated often enough it "becomes" truth. Al Gore never actually said he invented the internet. link (http://dir.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/index.html) (if you consider salon.com reputable) He said he helped fund it in its infancy. Bush has linked Saddam and Osama so thouroughly in the minds of the people that a fair number of them actually believe Saddam actually helped plan 9-11. if you consider macrumors a credible source ;) (http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/topic/31081-1.html) My plan involves disputing every word that comes out of the White House, and having solid evidence to back it up. Whereas the Dems have tended to drop issues, the Neocons have kept hammering away until their warped version is the only one being heard.

I agree that Americans would get tired of hearing the same message "Bush is a liar" over and over again. And I'm sure Bush would manage to make them look like they're quibbling or nitpicking over inconsequentials. Like whether Iraq actually bought uranium. (Pretty big quibble, imo)

I think that any praise given by the Dems to the Reps would be spun as "look! even they admit we're doing it right!" and I don't believe the Dems can give any ground right now. They've gone along with the president quite long enough, and it's far past time to stand up and speak out.

On the issue of federal deficits, I think you're right again. The average American can't see past his own nose, so doesn't really care about the long term consequences of running such huge deficits.

I guess I figure that whatever strategy the Dems have been pursuing hasn't worked, and if distorting, attacking and repeating works for the conservative element, then I'd hope that showing the plain truth, attacking and repeating would work even better for the liberal element.

And this political game plan seems to have worked fairly well for the conservatives so far. Except for the whole truth and proof part.



My opinion of the American people isn't so high right now. They'll probably happily eat whatever Rove feeds them and ask for more.

"We must win the war on terror!"
Like we won the war on drugs?

"We must invade Iraq because they're about to attack with WMD's, uh, because they're in league with Osama, uh, because Saddam is violating resolution 1441, uh, because we *want to free the Iraqi people!* yeah, that's the ticket, who can argue with freedom?"
Apparently John Ashcroft, check out what the ACLU has to say about his policies.


Originally posted by etoiles
It is easy to distort/hide the truth with graphics.
I disagree. I think it's a very informative graphic. I was curious as to how Gore won most of the Texas counties bordering Mexico, myself. It also speaks as to where each candidates power bases are. Gore in the cities and Bush rurally.

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Thanatoast

I disagree. I think it's a very informative graphic. I was curious as to how Gore won most of the Texas counties bordering Mexico, myself. It also speaks as to where each candidates power bases are. Gore in the cities and Bush rurally.

It shows a tendency, cities vs rural regions. So yes, you can still get some information out of the graphic, and I admit I have actually seen more retarded graphics before ;)
But if a county had a 49%/51% split, then I would hardly call that a 'power base' for anybody, so the information remains limited.

However, the main point of the graphic is "Bush won 81% of the total area of the country"...which neatly hides the fact that he only won by few votes. How about listing actual voting results alongside 'murder rate' :rolleyes: , growth, population of counties etc. ?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by etoiles
this is one of the most retarded graphics, sorry. People vote, not square miles...and then in a county that Bush won, they add all of Gore's votes to Bush's account...

It is easy to distort/hide the truth with graphics.

Quite right. This thematic map exploits a classic trick in presenting spatial statistics. Your eye fools your brain into drawing conclusions that the numbers do not bear out. In order for a graphic like this be visually meaningful, the areas of the counties would need to be standardized for population density. Such maps do exist.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
I disagree. I think it's a very informative graphic. I was curious as to how Gore won most of the Texas counties bordering Mexico, myself. It also speaks as to where each candidates power bases are. Gore in the cities and Bush rurally.

It doesn't even tell you that, unless you can accurately add layers of data to the map from your own knowledge. Very few people can do that, and more importantly, a viewer should not be expected to do so.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by etoiles
this is one of the most retarded graphics, sorry. People vote, not square miles...and then in a county that Bush won, they add all of Gore's votes to Bush's account...

It is easy to distort/hide the truth with graphics.

The graphic was meant to illustrate the divide in the electorate, rural vs urban. It had the side effect of pointing out the area difference between the two sides.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by etoiles
However, the main point of the graphic is "Bush won 81% of the total area of the country"...which neatly hides the fact that he only won by few votes. How about listing actual voting results alongside 'murder rate' :rolleyes: , growth, population of counties etc. ?

That has been done too. Murder rates in rural areas are much lower than in the urban areas.

[raschild]

Originally posted by etoiles
praise for what exactly ?? Just curious, I can't find anything right now...

Just ask the people of Afghanistan and Iraq who have been freed from tyranny. Sure, conditions are far from ideal, but all change, even change for the better, is difficult. Give it time.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
The graphic was meant to illustrate the divide in the electorate, rural vs urban. It had the side effect of pointing out the area difference between the two sides.

Whatever it was meant to illustrate, it did not succeed. The map provided no information to the viewer about which parts of the country are rural or urban, and the area distinctions are meaningless.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by raschild
Give it time.

Where did I hear that before? ...

Oh, yeah, when we were hot on the trail of the WoMD in Iraq! Any day now!

[raschild]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Where did I hear that before? ...

Oh, yeah, when we were hot on the trail of the WoMD in Iraq! Any day now!

You only continue to prove the point that people spend too much time finding fault with people they don't like to give them credit for anything they've done right. If you honestly took a look, you would find something that the President has done that you agree with. Most simply won't. That's what the article said, and I agree. (see my first post)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by raschild
You only continue to prove the point that people spend too much time finding fault with people they don't like to give them credit for anything they've done right. If you honestly took a look, you would find something that the President has done that you agree with. Most simply won't. That's what the article said, and I agree. (see my first post)

I tried to like him, especially after 9/11. He's done nothing, and I mean nothing, to benefit the planet or the commonwealth of America. His faults so far outweigh his strengths (I guess he hasn't lied about a blowjob yet) that the faults become the only thing I see in him.

Name one good thing Bush did and I'll tell you why it sucked.

[raschild]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I tried to like him, especially after 9/11. He's done nothing, and I mean nothing, to benefit the planet or the commonwealth of America. His faults so far outweigh his strengths (I guess he hasn't lied about a blowjob yet) that the faults become the only thing I see in him.

Name one good thing Bush did and I'll tell you why it sucked.

OK, I can understand disagreeing with someone for what they believe in, and what they choose to do, but that is close-mindedness at its finest. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by raschild
OK, I can understand disagreeing with someone for what they believe in, and what they choose to do, but that is close-mindedness at its finest. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't.

He's the one who's closeminded. I was open to liking him and still am but he continues to do the opposite of everything a president of the USA should.

I challenge you again to name one good thing Bush has done for the planet or the commonwealth of Americans.

[pseudobrit]

And one other thing:

if I disagree with someone because of what they believe and because of what they do, what other criteria must I use? Who their daddy was? What they drive?

Why does that make me close-minded?

[g5man]

Originally posted by raschild
You only continue to prove the point that people spend too much time finding fault with people they don't like to give them credit for anything they've done right. If you honestly took a look, you would find something that the President has done that you agree with. Most simply won't. That's what the article said, and I agree. (see my first post)

Well said. It is vital that those who are willing to constantly attack Bush, come up on their own with something positive to say. If they ask a conservative they will get an earfull of great things Bush has done. They need to ask their own people what they like about the president and how their party can take them to a better place than Bush.

True if they give some ground the conservatives can spin it to appear as if they are supporting his policies. However take a good look at Bush's honesty numbers. I don't have them in front of me but they are running in the 60's. Why? Because he is quick to praise every democrat and liberal in congress and then offer a different plan in the same breath. People see this and view it as someone who honestly attempts to do the right thing regardless of the consequences. He may risk being seen as too compromising with the opposition, but in the end he has solid support from the far right and middle of his party.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
If they ask a conservative they will get an earfull of great things Bush has done.

I asked twice already. [sound of crickets chirping]

They need to ask their own people what they like about the president and how their party can take them to a better place than Bush.

Why must I like him?

This isn't about anyone being close-minded.

It's about you telling me I need to like Bush in order to have your respect. If ignoring his failings and pointing out the positives of his term are the only way to gain your respect, I don't want it, because it's hollow.

[raschild]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
And one other thing:

if I disagree with someone because of what they believe and because of what they do, what other criteria must I use? Who their daddy was? What they drive?

Why does that make me close-minded?

I'm astounded and bewildered by how consistently you miss the point. It's fine for you to disagree based on something like someone's beliefs or actions, but not because you just don't like them. Like the author of the article said, to the loss of a great deal of credibility, he hates the way President Bush walks and talks. What does that have to do with policy? Nothing. What does that have to do with foreign relations? Nothing. It merely conveys the fact that he blindly hates the man, and that hurts what he has to say about everything else. For this very same reason, I'm not going to tell you something good the President has done because you, in light of your blatant dislike for the man, will find a way to shoot it down. Objectivity is key, and also very difficult. I don't claim to have it mastered. That's all I'm gonna say on the subject.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I asked twice already. [sound of crickets chirping]

There is no need to debate Bush's actions or point out what he did well. The issue is how can those who hate him get people to change their minds and vote for their man instead of Bush.



Originally posted by pseudobrit Why must I like him?

This isn't about anyone being close-minded.

It's about you telling me I need to like Bush in order to have your respect. If ignoring his failings and pointing out the positives of his term are the only way to gain your respect, I don't want it, because it's hollow.

pseudobrit,

I never said you need to like Bush nor did I imply that you need to gain my respect. What I simply suggested is that if those who hate Bush can fashion their message by saying something positive first, they can impact the elections much more next year.

And I don't think you are closed minded. The fact that you respond and explain yourself indicates that you are listening to all view points even if you disagree.

[Thanatoast]

The reason Bush's honesty numbers are so high is because many people still think he's too dumb to be that evil. In fact, he's an unscrupulous, manipulative, lying bastard.

As proof I offer the following:

unscrupulous - his "clear skies" initiative actually raises maximum pollution levels and eases rules to make it easier for power companies to upgrade without building in new pollution controls.

manipulative - he successfully linked Saddam and Osama in the minds of a majority of the American people even though the two have never met, and the last time there was any contact at any level was years before 9-11.

lying - Saddam has WMD. He could attack tomorrow. We know where they are. Or if that doesn't suit your fancy, how about "Iraq purchased unranium from Nigeria", when the report that accusation was based on had been disproved months earlier.

bastard - see above

I like to think I hate Bush for fully supportable reasons. Objectivity is sustained when what you're saying happens to be true, no matter how ugly.

Negative campaigning has a noticible effect on voting patterns. People may be annoyed and disgusted by it, but they remember it nonetheless. The Republicans would never campaign positive if they knew the Democrats were going to campaign negative. The rule is get your message out first, and most. The Dems happen to have a lot of ammunition on their side, if they're willing to use it. You can be sure the Reps will do whatever they can to discredit the Dems.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by raschild
What does that have to do with policy? Nothing. What does that have to do with foreign relations? Nothing.

i'm having trouble thinking of a single policy bush has supported that i agree with.

i don't like him, and that is because i don't agree w/ what he does or how he does it. it's not the other way around.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by raschild
I'm astounded and bewildered by how consistently you miss the point. It's fine for you to disagree based on something like someone's beliefs or actions, but not because you just don't like them.

Here's what you said:

OK, I can understand disagreeing with someone for what they believe in, and what they choose to do, but that is close-mindedness at its finest.

Maybe you're just not making yourself clear. I told you I don't like Bush because of what he does, and you called me closed-minded because of it.

[pseudobrit]

I'd also like to point out that no one has stepped up to the challenge and cited one good thing Bush has done.

[Inu]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I'd also like to point out that no one has stepped up to the challenge and cited one good thing Bush has done.

He certainly supported several projects to rebuild iraq. Oh. Well. It was his fault it needs rebuilding. My bad.

He has led a coalition force to attack afghanistan and was victorious! Oh. Well. A first grader with half his brain would have won it, i have to agree. After 9/11 everyone would have done it too. Even a democratic president, as i might point out.

He has brought up several tax cuts! Best of it all, he and his buddys do not profit the most of it! Uhm... No. Got it wrong again. The average American doesnt profit all that much.

He has shown that pesky French Men and the damned-be-they-forever germans how insignificant they are and that the UN is completely insignificant. Oh... Didnt he just ask for Help at the very same nations for his Post-Iraq-Win-****up?

Damn, i give up.
In Retrospect, had you elected a jack-in-the-box in 2000, you would have been better off. Or at least a parrot. Parrots can talk, and some of them even have charisma :cool:

[mcrain]

Oh, oh, oh [hand up in the air]

I know one thing Bush has done that EVERYONE here on macrumors will be proud of and support!

He and the justice department he appointed basically dropped the anti-trust suits against Microsoft for basically nothing.

Yeah! Yippie!

We can all agree that that was a good thing... right?

[wwworry]

Bush is a loser and has never done anything right.